As a Puerto Rican-American myself, I'd love to see it.

They actually had at least one before, but DC still hasn't taken action.

Unfortunately

I mean, every year the Puerto Rican citizens go further away from independence and closer to statehood in their referendums. Sure, there are some nationalists, but a majority of the population wants to join America for some reason. They'd probably be more successful independent though.

Are you SURE that Independence is an option allowed to them, in these referendums? And the vote isn't limited to indigenous Puerto Ricans. Americans living there are allowed to vote, too. It's a bit like the French Empire's colony of New Caledonia. The French moved their people in, and thereby, they rig the vote. The New Caledonians aren't having it. https://t.me/intelslava/60367

The problem with Empire and Monarchy, in general, is that relies upon the benevolence of Kings and Imperial rulers. And typically, they aren't benevolent. They presume that they have a "Divine Right" to rule, or an exceptionalist "Manifest Destiny". These aren't frequently convincing arguments - to those being ruled, particularly as you get farther away from the rulers, and they get more out of touch with the needs of the people and lands that they're exploiting.

True. True. The Spanish committed many atrocities. And then they intermingled with natives, who they somehow did even though seeing themselves as superior? That is why I have 20% Indigenous DNA, the rest is Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. Funny though, most Puerto Ricans you talk to are happy about their Spanish culture, music and Instruments. I'm not a nationalist though. It would be, disastrous. 🇵🇷

I haven't really looked into it, so I don't really know that much about if it was rigged or not. As for Monarchy, it was founded as a powerful and long-lasting government. The Kings were meant to rule well over the people and support their needs. However, evil Monarchs do arise from time to time, like UK's king today. For example, Russia had Peter the Great, who tried to make Russia a better place. However, there were also kings like the a few of the ones in former Romania and the region around it, who were plain brutal.

Any form of Government can wind up being benevolent - or malevolent. It depends on the people involved and their character, and the goals that they're pursuing.

I don't know that "Independence" from the US is an option on the ballot. If your choices are perpetually exploited and abused colony - or Statehood - that may explain why that option becomes more popular over time. But like with Hawai'i - the results will be subject to reversal, since the people had a RIGHT to independence and sovereignty - that was denied to them in the referendum.

True, Hawaii could do better independently than under Biden's regime

Or Trump's...or Obama's, or Cheney's or Clinton's or Reagan's... The US STOLE their Islands. Their indigenous Monarchy was popular and benevolent. Now they have US Military bases polluting their air and ground water. And Hawaiians are being destroyed as a people, and pushed to the margins.

Yep, they would do better without them. They had a powerful nation until the USA came and overthrew everything.

They weren't a world power - but they didn't have to be... They lived well - in paradise. The Americans came in, and pretended to be friends - and then began stealing.

Yeah. The Americans also took California and Texas for themselves, when they were still independent. America is a greedy creature, eating all it can take, powered by their idea of 'manifest destiny.'

Funny enough, Texas joined on their own accord. California, well...

Are you saying that Paetro Rico shouldn't be an American state? I just want to claify.

No no no. I'm saying they should hold a referendum. I'd love their vote in Congress, then we could finally make it more stable. You see, white American investors come down there and invest and open up businesses, because they pay no income tax. Guess how much of that goes down to Puerto Ricans? None! My people live in shacks while they get rich in San Juan.

I see, but i was talking about the other guy tho

My bad

The process by which "THE STATE OF HAWAII" went from an sovereign Kingdom, to a US colony to a "STATE" was transparently illegal, and problematic under International law. The people of Hawai'i were given only two choices - remain a subject people and colony - or join the US and become a State/STATE. NEVER were they given the third option, that was their right - full independence.

The UN acknowledged this, at one point, possibly at the ICJ. And to this day there is a strong sovereignty movement in the islands, where people object to being a site for US Empire Military bases, that routinely pollute their water and land. The Kingdom of Hawai'i has people still working to remove the yoke of the US Empire.

The situation in Puerto Rico is almost the same - except there, people have risen-up over the years at times taking up arms - and have suffered tremendously under the jackboots of US repression of their desire for independence. The results of a referendum are questionable enough that the US hasn't been pushing for it. And besides - the US LIKES having an Offshore colony, where there are no sovereignty or 10th Amendment State's rights questions. The IRS and ATF were initially headquartered there - to prevent any questions of Constitutionality from being asked. There's a Treasury of Puerto Rico, that functions as a separate offshore Department, under the US Treasury.

I'm saying that the issue shouldn't just be abused colony vs. 51st State - but rather, don't they have an inherent right to be a sovereign homeland for the Boriqua? There's been Puerto Ricans demanding that later option for a long time. Now - if you held a referendum - a bunch of the people voting, would be American transplants with an entirely different set if perspectives and priorities.

They could be independent, I agree with you. I want my nationality to make their own decisions. Here's why it's a bad idea

They wouldn't get the FEMA aid, as they wouldn't be in the u.s, like many latin countries, it could end up being corrupt, and also, with no one investing but tourism, once the Americans pull out, they'd be poor. Even worse then they are now. The unfortunate thing is, it's a catch 22. Without our investment, their situation is worse, but with it, Puerto Ricans stay poor. Puerto Ricans themselves should make companies, they should invest in their own island. We colonized their land, but at least on the north shore of the island, where I'm from, most people are happy being us citizens. It does come with perks. Independence is a good idea, but the logistics...

Hmm i very much see, and i am aware of the annexation of Hawaii. But honestly, the decision should come to the Puarto Ricans, if they want to be a US state, they can be one, if they dont, they dont.

So as is your pattern - you side with the "rights" of Empire (to steal things), over the actual rights of indigenous populations, to be secure in their property and sovereignty.

According to you - their choices are only to continue-on as colonial subjects of the District of Columbia - or to become "US citizens" - which also makes them subjects of the District of Columbia (collateralized chattel, and sureties on the Federal debt)? At what point is their expressed desire - to have nothing to do with the US, taken into consideration?

Now when you say that the decision comes to Puerto Ricans (the Boriquen) - which people are you talking about? The Indigenous people of the Island, or the foreign settler-colonials from the US? Because by importing its people to the island - they've significantly changed the demographics, and diluted the strength of the local voters, in any given referendum. It's the same thing that happened in Hawai'i.

They should vote themselves, but I agree it would be rigged. Flawed even, because of the rich whit people who live there, and don't care at all about my people. It's annoying as hell because if they vote for themselves, some will vote for territory, and that could still be a good thing. Statehood, means they'd have to pay income tax. That could also keep them poor, especially when investors leave. But then leaving would be good for stopping oppression, and it's too much...it's a catch 22. It's too confusing. Maybe it's best this way.

Also I see that I've contradicted myself in this conversation. I should watch out for that next time round

If it does not relate to me, not my problem